Slashdot Mirror
Today's SCO News
landoltjp writes "SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX) are hosting a teleconference today in order to clear the air (*snort*) regarding "Novell's baseless UNIX ownership assertions" and other bits of hubbub and nonesense that's in the news today. Should be fun." And SCO has apparently been enjoined from making some of its claims by a German court (also here.) Cringely has an editorial on the whole mess.
The headline pretty much says it all. "Today's SCO News". SCO is doing *everything* they can to keep themselves in the media/technology spotlight.
Of course, the Novell bit really hurt them, and now they're getting a bit desperate. If they had any dignity they'd just give up now, but we know they don't.
NOT!!!!!
This is not going away. I suspect this will linger for a good year or more. That is, unless SCO shareholders make a stand. Which is just not going to happen. The lawyers are running the show. SCO is no longer a technology company. They are one of these new fangled IP companies, like Rambus. The really funny thing is that it's not even their own IP.
I'm sure they think that they're on to something. But the courts have a way (albeit lengthy) of asserting common sense when the horse is already out of the barn.
I STRONGLY urge the slashdot editors to consider a weekly update, rather than hourly update, on this story from now until next year.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Aren't these the same German laws and courts that had the OSS world up in arms over the Killustrator/Adobe issue?
It's hypocritcal to trash them when strange laws work against you, then cheer them when similarly strange laws work in your favor.
Where is the code?
SCO has said that for legal reasons, they won't identify the exact code. But it would be useful to know if the code is in the kernel, or in user space. If the kernel, at least what directory, or section of the kernel is it in?
If it is a header file, in the include directory, similarities are to be expected. For example, the Linux system call numbers are the some as many other OSes. These number are well known, and and have been for decades, and can't possibly be a trade secret. POSIX defines a zillion well-known constants which will show up in most every POSIX compliant OS, and similarities are also to be expected here. Again, this doesn't mean that Linux copied from SCO, rather, that they both copied from POSIX.
If the code is in a device driver, it is very possible that both the SCO code and the Linux code share a common ancestor -- many device drivers are written by the device manufacturers, and given to the OS vendors to include in their system.
If the code is in the CPU-specific part of the kernel, is it something that there is only one way to do. Intel publishes specs on how to manipulate low-level registers to do specfic tasks (start second CPUs, enable memory protection, etc.), and there just aren't that many different ways to do them.
Is the code is *BSD, or elsewhere on the net?
If this alledgedly infringing code is in *BSD, or on other places on the net, this would again point to a non-SCO ancestor. For example, Intel publishes Application Notes on how to use features of their processors. It wouldn't surprise me to find this code in many different OSes which use Intel processors, or Intel-compatible processors. Also, there is some Unix(tm) code which has been given to the public domain, in the interest of portability. I believe that cpio is one of these programs.
Both SCO and Linux use the X window system, which came from the X consortium -- I'm sure there's a ton of common X related code in both, but again, that doesn't mean that Linux copied from SCO.
The last Unix lawsuit resulted in marking all of the BSD code as "clean", so if this infringing code is also in one of the BSDs, that would help to indicate that it is also clean.
When did the code first originate?
As many people have pointed out, even if there is similar code in both Unix and in Linux, that doesn't indicate which direction the code moved. If such similarities can be found, the origination dates would need to be proved as well. Apparently, SCO ships Samba, GCC, and other open source code today, and marks it as such. Perhaps there's more code like this that slipped into the kernel.
Nah, that last part was just Cringley trolling again. He is almost qualified to join the trolls here on /. with his constant "Microsoft Linux" and "Mac OS on Intel" wishful thinking/rumormongering. He just needs to add in a "BSD is Dying" or something about about hot grits to his future work. :)
Microsoft will never abandon Windows for a *NIX base like Apple did, because Microsoft knows they will never compete in the marketplace on the merits of their products. No sane IT person trusts them on any front, from general customer relations (Licensing 6.0), security (Outlook), stability (all products) to having a stable upgrade path (VB.NET). Without their monopoly they are out of business. If they even ported Office it would only hurt them. The only people buying Office for Linux would be buying it in the context of migrating OFF of Windows and using Office for Linux as a temporary bridge product, meaning a one-time sale instead of a revenue stream.
Nevertheless, the monopoly will be broken and they will fade into history. Too large to be allowed to completely fail, but settling into has-been status as one of those big mega-corps that nobody can really figure out what they do anymore, but still they exist.
Democrat delenda est
According to the injuction that uninvention got from the German courts, if SCO repeat or continue to make their unproven allegations that Linux contains their IP, they can be fined up to 250,000 Euros. :-)
So, who is going to make them say it in the conference call?
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
SCO just stated on the conference call, in response to a question asking if it would be possible to use the Linux kernel in a fashion that would not violate SCO's claims, that they are only really concerned with people using the 2.4 kernel and above. So is this a clue that the code in question is something that is only in kernels > 2.4?
Let's take a moment to remember whose intellectual property all this really is:
Dennis
Brian
Ken
Rob
et. al.
"Unix, Live Free or Die"
That being said this might not be so bad for FOOS.
From the attitude of your CIO it looks like there is Zero undertanding and Zero willingness to give anything back, so why should your company benefit from FOOS.
The impact to FOOS of them not using any open source software is zip to the community as a whole, and your employeer puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage which is richly deserved.
FOOS is a long term Quid pro Quo and not a one way street, at least in spirit.
Help fight continental drift.
With all these posts charting the decline and fall of SCO... I wonder how many slashdotters are short-selling their stock? They're doomed, we all know it, there's profit to be had... Now that would be the most devastating /.ing ever. Have we ever slashdotted someone's share price before?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
SCO owns all of UNIX, all versions, all updates, all source and all derivative works.
They don't own the UNIX trademark. It would be funny if The Open Group revoked SCO's right to it.
Also, SCO would have to put up a pretty solid argument to claim ownership of BSD-derived UNIX. How long has the Berkeley-sanctioned BSD licensing scheme been around? Over a decade, now? Why didn't SCO make a fuss about 386BSD or NetBSD, or OpenBSD, or FreeBSD, or Mac OS X?
A poster above brought up another good point: What about those old versions of UNIX released as Open Source a while back by Caldera?
Additionally, there are other POSIX systems that SCO can't touch, limiting SCO's future benefits of their kiddie rants. For example, GNU.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I'm not saying netcraft is wrong, but keep in mind that the Netcraft survey is based on a guess. They probe the web server in expected (and unexpected) ways to see what kind of responses/error messages they get to queries, and categorize based on those responses.
Its entirely possible that Netcraft is wrong - any of the following is possible:
- Netcraft have no profile for SCO, and so it guesses that unknown Unix = Linux
- Netcraft has an ID for SCO, but SCO run a heavily modded server which looks more like Linux for some reason
- SCO is actually running linux on their website
Can anyone confirm any of these points? Anyone know of a website that actually runs on SCO that we can use as a baseline for comparison?
Russ %-)
... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Here's the theory. The company executives convince themselves that they have been wronged and find a lawyer who willingly agrees. What they don't have (and why I originally titled it "Negative Feedback") is someone pointing out their errors. In other words, they don't have any negative feedback internally for their claim. I have no doubts that their attorney knows its a non starter. Saying its a non starter, though, means no more gravy train of legal fees. So he goes ahead and prosecutes the percieved injustice as strongly as ever.
Now, for the lawyer to keep billing the case has to be kept going. The more FUD spread, the longer it goes, and the less tangible the claims made, the easier it will be to pursue the case. Once SCO gets pinned down to the nitty gritty of their case, it will probably be game over. Discovery will force SCO to disclose the exact nature of their claim to IBM. Once that happens, IBM can subpoena Novell, and maybe even Lindows from what I have seen from some of the comments, for their documents related to ownership and can review the work that IBM put into the Linux kernal. IBM can then move for Summary Judgment based on the fact that a) the code in question is not owned by SCO (and hence has no standing) b) that the code was not incorporated into the Linux kernal (and hence the case is moot) and possibly even c) that SCO GPL'd it through Lindows (and is, again, mooted).
It is in the Discovery process that SCO will drag out the case. There will be constant objections, motions to compel, motions for protective orders and every last line is going to be contested. SCO's lawyer will probably be able to extend the discovery process for years. Even longer if a Special Master is appointed.
Throughout this process the SCO atty is going to be reinforcing to SCO how wronged SCO is and how everything that IBM is doing is merely a trick to continue to steal from SCO. Again there will be a distinct lack of opposing voices. At the end of the day IBM will have won, Linux will be vindicated (but not without serious sales disruption), MS will point to the whole 2+ year debacle as further evidence of OS unreliability, SCO will be bankrupt, and their lawyer will own a couple new houses, boats and cars.
At least that's my take on it (and I am only a cynical paralegal- not a lawyer!), though the reality is I know less about it than a lot of the other posters here. SO be sure and add some NaCl before ingesting;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Firstly, we don't know that SCO has told IBM what the code in question is yet. My guess is that until they file for an injuction against IBM's continuing distribution of AIX, they won't disclose the "offending code" to anyone, not even IBM. Secondly and more to the point, IBM is defending a lawsuit and not running a FUD campaign. IBM knows that the best way to win a lawsuit is to let the opposition know as little as possible of your plans, stratgeies, etc.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
... really doesn't know yet if SCO got anything on them or not. It certainly looks weird so far. Perhaps they are just stalling as long as it takes so their own auditors can go over it once, twice and thrice so they don't pull a boner in court. Probably interviewing a lot of past programmers as well. The last place you want to find out stuff is in discovery.
methinks that wasn't an appropriate saying for slashdot......
oh well
Germany has the advantage of a 20th Century legal system that in many aspects -- though certainly not all -- is vastly superiour the 18th Century hack that the U.S. is hobbled by (for the record: I'm an American). This starts with the basic philosophy: The American system is adversarial, which means that you don't even pretend to care about what really happened, you just let both parties slug it out and declare one side a winner at the end. In constrast, the German system at least pretends to be interested in the truth. This means for example that procecutors are required by law to list all the evidence they think shows that the accused is innocent.
Also: The court calls the scientific experts, which means that German cases are almost completely free of the junk science that makes the U.S. legal system so bizarre. Lawyers are paid the same (by fixed rates) if they win or lose and law students do not aspire to become millionaires. The guy with the most money doesn't automatically win -- while most Americans will not even consider going to court against entities with deep pockets anymore. All judges are appointed, not elected, and then they are basically untouchable; note the U.S. only uses this system for a few elite positions like the Supreme Court.
More differences: Laws are written down in books, not make up as you go along by creative interpretations of older rulings. This provides Germany with Rechtssicherheit ("legal security"), so the legal environment has a certain degree of stability, a very, very alien concept to the U.S., where anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time, stupid or not. As a result, there is basically no such thing as a "tactical lawsuit" in Germany. You don't get "laughed out of court" -- they don't let the clowns in in the first place.
Like in any modern legal system, the lottery of trial-by-jury has been replaced by a panel of professional judges who know what DNA is and don't show up in Star Trek uniforms when considering a murder case -- remember OJ? People are assumed to be of average intelligence, not morons like in the U.S., and so you can't sue McDonald's if you are such a dumb fuck that you burn you tongue on their coffee (the mentally handicapped are treated on a case-by-case basis).
The German legal system has also proven itself to be fiercely independant of government influence (compared to the Microsoft trial in the U.S., for example). German judges ruled flat out that Libya was behind the bombings in Berlin that killed U.S. soldiers at the same time the German administration was kissing up to Ghaddafi for economic reasons.
There are, of course, disadvantages, like a tendency to give murders 20 years and then let them out after 15. However, the German system on the whole is far, far more sane than the American one, and so it doesn't surprise me one bit that SCO is not getting away with this crap in Germany.